I didn't see anyone comment on the ending, other than to say it goes nowhere, and I don't really agree with that, so here's my thoughts: the protagonist (Jason Scott Campbell) gets his first clue on how to "end the movie" / "catch the killer" / "end the murders", when his teacher tells him "it's time for the protagonist to take control - everyone's been a victim so far, it's time for him to take control - and time for you to finish the movie." A further clue comes from his classmate, the guy making the other movie: "... there's no villain.. it's almost as if, the director, he's the villain, he's the one putting us through all this." That's when he gets the idea - to end it, he must take control, so he invites Natalia over, grabs a knife, sets up the camera, starts it recording and he and Natalia lay on the bed, the knife hidden beside him. Increasingly certain he's the killer and/or crazy, Natalia starts fighting him, afraid he's going to kill her (or perhaps playing along, understanding his intent).
Then the "movie with a movie" starts happening, and quite simply the protagonist kills the director, or the person filming. Next the scene cuts to the class film set, and the ending of the movie and movie within movie is shown - and then Natalia and protagonist huddle while he says "it's over, it's over".
Who was the director? I think that is left up to the viewer. The literal interpretation could be the person who set everything up entered the room - maybe the janitor, maybe someone else, and the protagonist killed him. Another interpretation, more magical but still inside the movie, is the camera was some kind of window to another dimension, or the mind/dreams of the director, and somehow a magical second reality was interfering, and the act of killing the "director" was a way to pick an ending and stop it. Yet another interpretation is, the whole work is not actually a horror movie but an inside comment on film making of horror movies, and the comment is, in movies such as this, or Blair-witch, etc, the villain is simply the director.
Personally, I think in some cases this type of ending can be brilliant, but in this case we weren't quite there (thus a 6). The viewer wonders, was this an intentional plan of a writer with a message? Or is this just a cowardly way to end a movie from a writer who was unwilling to write an actual ending, or couldn't make up his mind, or ran out of money? And I think that is what bothers so many viewers about endings like this.
Then the "movie with a movie" starts happening, and quite simply the protagonist kills the director, or the person filming. Next the scene cuts to the class film set, and the ending of the movie and movie within movie is shown - and then Natalia and protagonist huddle while he says "it's over, it's over".
Who was the director? I think that is left up to the viewer. The literal interpretation could be the person who set everything up entered the room - maybe the janitor, maybe someone else, and the protagonist killed him. Another interpretation, more magical but still inside the movie, is the camera was some kind of window to another dimension, or the mind/dreams of the director, and somehow a magical second reality was interfering, and the act of killing the "director" was a way to pick an ending and stop it. Yet another interpretation is, the whole work is not actually a horror movie but an inside comment on film making of horror movies, and the comment is, in movies such as this, or Blair-witch, etc, the villain is simply the director.
Personally, I think in some cases this type of ending can be brilliant, but in this case we weren't quite there (thus a 6). The viewer wonders, was this an intentional plan of a writer with a message? Or is this just a cowardly way to end a movie from a writer who was unwilling to write an actual ending, or couldn't make up his mind, or ran out of money? And I think that is what bothers so many viewers about endings like this.